The Yin and Yang or male and female energies have been identified and assigned to us from the day we are born.
The male child has traditionally been seen as the great and shining hope for the insurance of wealth and the prosperity of the family. But all that has changed in the current century and women are taking on a new role and are now seen as the possible heir apparent in family dynamics of
inheritance, wealth and power.

Have you ever noticed that when a baby is born, even in this day and age, there is still certain language used to proclaim the gender of the new arrival? If the bundle of joy is a male, you might hear….It’s a “Bouncing baby boy”… it’s a healthy nine pound boy or just the proud announcement that a new male… a ”boy” has entered our ranks. In years past, cigars were handed out by the proud father to celebrate the gender of his offspring and on the band of the cigar was emblazoned three simple, totally fulfilling words…”It’s a boy”.

But if a female child is born, in years past and still today, you will invariably hear almost everyone refer to her, from her first moment of appearance, as … “a beautiful little girl”.

My point here is that in terms of the Yin and Yang of Daoism, the healthy, “bouncing” active male qualities of Yang and the recessive, attractive qualities of the female Yin are assigned to us on the very first day of our lives. And while the male child is greeted with the anticipation of success and the hope of carrying on the family name, the girl child is somehow already diminished by being described in the diminutive as “little” and judged on the basis of beauty as if her attributes of attractiveness are the primary resource that will ensure her future success.

In short, a boy baby has always been seen to be the prize in the gamble of birthing babies because he is the one allowed the traditional role of being the empire builder, the soldier and the defender of the faith. He is the active Yang participant in the world and for millennia has been the one to bear the burden of earning a living, carrying on the family name and seeing that no shame or insult come to tarnish it.

BUT ALL OF THAT HAS CHANGED… or at least come into question in the new century. The battle of the sexes and our view of the potential of baby boys and baby girls has taken a sharp turn in our cultural ideas of reproduction, gender value and sexuality. Even the institution of marriage is under intense scrutiny as to its value and actual purpose… With the change in women’s ability to generate income, build empires of their own and thrive without the protection or husbandry of men, women have a new freedom and a new identity that no longer relies on their looks or their ability to attract male favour. But it is of infinite importance to understand a bit of why we as a culture have given the “Bouncing baby Boy” the upper hand.

Follow the Money….Follow the Boys

One of the classic reasons that male babies were held in higher esteem than girls was that the mortality rate in children was extremely high before the advancement of more modern prenatal care, birthing techniques and delivery facilities. Since the rate of deaths in children continued to be high well into their adolescence the likelihood of male children dying due to their higher risk activities left the family in danger of losing an heir and the potential to generate income and produce more offspring.

Using the 18^th and 19^th centuries as examples, the income generating potential of females, other than making an auspicious union with a wealthy male, was next to nothing. Working as a servant or a prostitute or at the occasional job of governess, seamstress or shop or tavern keeper could give a woman a certain level of independence, but that income was largely reliant on employment by men or culling the favours of men to make a buck.

In the 17^th and 18^th centuries married women experienced pregnancy and childbirth as many as six or seven times in their reproductive years and some as many as a dozen times or more in order to generate males to support the family and create potential for grandchildren who carry the family name.

The mortality rate in children during those centuries was as high as 36% before the age of six and according to multiple studies the total infant and adolescent deaths before age sixteen reached a staggering 60 out of 100. To put that in perspective with today’s research, according to the United Nations Population Fund, the world’s infant mortality rate is now approximately 69 deaths per 1,000.

The cherished son
Admiral Francis Holburne and 
his son. 18th Century portrait by Joshua Reynolds

With a high percentage of male children dying, in earlier centuries, it was imperative to keep having more children in order to generate the highest number of males who might create businesses, engage in trade and generally provide the wealth and status that would ensure the family’s survival and well-being for yet another generation.

The males that were unlikely to generate children or wealth or who would not stand to inherit property by means of entail or rights of the progenitor were often shipped off to become a priest or clergyman or joined the military where they might enhance the name of the family through pious or heroic deeds. This was the case for many homosexual men who, even if they tied the marital knot would be less likely to spawn more than a meager offering of offspring to keep the family going.

The real MONEY was almost always a result of the success of male children so little effort was expended by parents to promote the efforts of their female children other than the obligation to prepare them for a fortuitous marriage by teaching them the skills of womanhood and levels of refinement suitable to their station in life. Where a miller’s daughter might be taught to cook and learn to sew, a middle class or upper class girl might be taught music, singing, deportment (how to walk, move and present oneself in public) and even such manly sorts as riding or fencing in order to attract a mate from the upper levels of society.

The Mating Directive

The primary directive of the sexual act is that of reproduction…to have as many children as possible. And since the infant and juvenile mortality rate in earlier centuries was so high, that meant a LOT of children.

Of course, the main purpose of sex in other centuries was the bonding of families in order to create stronger alliances, produce more children and grandchildren in order to widen the gene pool and increase potential to acquire wealth to guarantee that the elders of the family would be taken care of in their old age.

Pleasure in sex has always been the subject of romance and many a bawdy tale, but behind it all was the necessity to attach to family in order to gain position and money. Even the illegitimate offspring of wealthy and important men were often provided for, because even without legitimacy they nonetheless carried the blood of the great personage and was therefore either worthy of being unofficially recognized or might be murdered in their sleep as a threat to the true legitimate heirs of the great man.

Birth Ratios and the Fisher Principle

It is important to note that even though it was in the best interest of a family to have male children in order to bring in the cash, the actual ratio of male to female birth rate is close to 1:1 or a fifty- fifty chance of having either a male or female child. The actual statistic as of a 2013 study is that for every 100 females born there are approximately 107 males. But taking into consideration cultural elements and others factors, it is argued that, worldwide, the figures are closer to 101 males for every 100 females… roughly 1:1 or neck and neck in the race.

In 1930 and English Statistician and Biologist named Ronald Fisher used mathematics to equate Mendelian genetics and Natural Selection to explain sexual selection and helped generate a renewed interest in Darwinism. His theory is called the Fisher’s Principle in which he presents the idea that the sex ratio, male to female, amongst most species, including humans is 1:1, but it is the expenditure of effort and energy by the parents (or parent animals or insects) that determines the success of the species. He concludes that a female of any species best choice amongst potential mates is the one whose genes are inclined to produce the most male offspring with the best chance of reproductive success. He goes on to state that any other factors like nurturing, the ability to provide gifts or a pleasant environment are all irrelevant and secondary to the ability to father the female’s future offsprin

The male is king…or The Sexy Son idea…
where the inequality with women begins

In his 1967 paper “Extraordinary Sex Ratios”, W.D. Hamilton expands on the “Sexy son Hypothesis” to explain that if one starts with a reproducing couple, their “expenditure of energy” toward the offspring is going to be governed by the return expected from that offspring. In the final analysis… although the birth ratio of males to females is 1:1, what matters most to the reproducing pair is the future breeding successes of their sexy sons. And as a result of this desired need to have as many children and grandchildren as possible to keep up with the staggering infant and adolescent mortality rate, the more sexual and promiscuous nature the male displays, the better the original couple’s chances of having ongoing progeny.

Males can reproduce as many times as they can find partners with which to mate. Females can reproduce a number of times but produce only one issue or fraternal group at a time. Therefore a healthy “boy” of a species can reproduce himself potentially hundreds of times while a female cannot.

 These ideas are, of course, couched in science but not in social culture can be interpreted to make one feel uncomfortable as to the equality of the sexes. The truth is that in this one area there is no equality. It is simply a fact that the male of most species has an advantage in terms of reproductive ability.

But if one factors in the alternate facts… that women generally live longer than men because men historically have higher risk occupations, more stress and high incidence of heart disease, or that women are more likely to have an emotional network that provides care and nurturing than men… the seemingly unfair advantage men have over women markedly decreases.

The New Directive… New responsibilities for women

In the past, the primary reason for getting married was to form a family alliance, as has been stated earlier, or to have children to reinforce the family labour force or to carry on the family’s good name. Men have traditionally shouldered the burden of making that happen by marrying off their daughters to prosperous suitors that would further the family’s social aspirations or by founding and working in businesses in order to create a suitable environment in which to raise children.

The woman’s JOB was to have children, preferably boys, and keep them alive until they reached adulthood, thereby ensuring multiple heirs to the family business and the family name. But the need for men and women to take on these rather two-dimensional roles is seemingly and hopefully no longer necessary. As a result of the women’s movement, newer thinking and programs that foster both education and jobs for women, the females of today no longer require the protection and husbandry of males. In fact it is argued by many that there is no longer a practical need for marriage other than the convenience of having a shared responsibility in raising children. But in this time in our culture, if the woman works and can generate enough money, even the true need of being supported by a man as the family matures is in essence no longer necessary.

The value of that “bouncing baby boy” has also changed in our society in recent years and boys are no longer seen as intrinsically more valuable than girls. Since women can now generate large incomes and build their own empires and careers, men are no longer seen as the bread-winners worthy of the singular attention they received in the past. And since a woman, in today’s world, can retain her own family name in business or have her family name included in a hyphenated form of a marital union, it is no longer necessary to see the male child as the sole offspring capable of carrying the family standard toward greatness.

Since women are now capable of fulfilling all of these roles that were exclusively filled by men in the past, it raises many questions about marital union or the necessity to stay married once the offspring are legally documented as legitimate.

Many questions are now looming as to the new role of men, and beg investigation into how men go about regaining power in the balance of Yin and Yang without reverting to a system that once again suppresses women.

Because of this, men are conscientiously revaluating their relationships to women at home and in the shared workplace and some are finding that the need to act out traditional roles of protecting and supporting women is no longer financially or emotionally desirable and that staying in a marriage is no longer necessary because there is no longer the need to wait until a male heir is produced in order to guarantee either the prospering of the family or the survival of the family name.

Fifty-seven percent of college graduates are women according to current statistics, a figure that certainly levels the playing field in that initial value judgment between the “bouncing boy” and the “beautiful little girl”. Women have the potential to be the top income earners in the American workforce and one can already hear the shattering of the perceived glass ceiling.

One question remains as women take on the true equality they so valiantly fought for, not only for equal rights and pay but to be of equal value as well. Will they rise to the occasion and take on other traditional roles that have been historically fulfilled by the male child? Will they defend the honour of the family, financially support their parents in their old age and fight and die for their country? Many women are already doing these things and there are countless stories of women who serve in the military or preside over a clan of family members.

But with men demoted from the role of heir apparent to that of heir presumptive, at best, only time will tell what new words will be used to describe our Yin and Yang energies and what forms of address will greet little girls and boys on their first day… when they come careening into this new world.

 

 

Constance Talmadge from D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance, 1916

IT’S NOT ABOUT THE MAKEUP

There are lots of people out there on the internet trying to recreate silent movie makeup “looks” to replicate the way actor’s faces looked on the shimmering black and white movie screen of the nineteen-teens and nineteen-twenties. Everyone who has had any exposure at all to the early art form of film knows what Charlie Chaplin looked like with his bowler hat, thick moustache and pale complexion that offsets his heavily outlined dark eyes. And many might recognise the names of the great actresses of the day (when female actors were still designated as actresses, tragediennes and comediennes, in a time before they thought it was somehow more powerful to take on the more generic male form of identification as an actor.)

Names like Joan Crawford, Gloria Swanson, Clara Bow, Colleen Moore, Greta Garbo and Mary Pickford are surely some of the most recognized—as well as Constance Talmadge, Vilma Banke and the temptress Theda Bara, whose name was an anagram for “Arab Death”. We are accustomed to seeing black and white photos of these people with the classic pale complexion, sometimes approaching a ghoulish pallor, with eyes lined in blackest kohl and lips artificially shaped into a cupid’s bow or a tulip and coloured so dark as to appear black. I’d wager that the majority of youtube makeup pundits and makeup artists who are attempting to recreate this “look” have little idea of why the stars of the silver screen really looked the way they did. The truth is—IT’S NOT ABOUT THE MAKEUP—IT’S ABOUT THE FILM.

Actors and actresses had been wearing makeup on the stage for centuries, usually in the form of grease paint in a range of flesh tones that were designed to enhance the character portrayed from “robust juvenile” to “aging crone”. Although these skin tones were far from natural looking, owing to their opaque and oily consistency, when seen from the respectable distance of the theatre stalls they did the trick and conveyed a convincing illusion of youthful beauty or rugged manliness. But when filmed photoplays became the rage at the start of the twentieth century, most of the actors in the fledgling moving picture business were totally confounded that when they did their makeup, intending to be rosy-cheeked and youthful, on film they appeared ghostly and ashen or swarthy and ill defined. Pinks and reds photographed dark and even uncosmeticised skin with a natural “high colour” would be recorded on film as dark, blotchy and uneven.

The film used by companies filming the early photoplays was what is referred to as “blue-sensitive” film, meaning that the blue-violet part of the colour spectrum washed out and was barely visible or appeared as white when an image was recorded on the film. The yellow-red portion of the colour spectrum was not sensitive so that reds and even pink would register as a very dark grey or even black. In addition, the film created a higher contrast in what it recorded so the fair-haired, blue-eyed beauty in her stage makeup was captured on film as having white, colourless eyes in place of pale blue, dark hair, and sunken hollows where the pink rouge had been applied on the cheeks. The colour of the lips was the most difficult to control and even the lightest orange, pink or brightest red would register as near black on the gray scale of early black and white film.

Richard Barthelmess in Broken Blossoms, 1919

COMBATING THE BLUE-SENSITIVE FILM

Because most early films, before the 1920s, were mostly shot outdoors or on sets that were constructed on the roofs of buildings in order to capture the strong natural light, it was even more difficult to get makeup to look natural because the camera and the film saw a different spectrum of light and colour than the human eye. Cinematographers of the times would wear a lens made of blue glass around their neck, which they would look through to “see” the gray tones that the camera saw and better judge what might be recorded by the film.

 

Actors became savvy as to which colours of greasepaint or powder would translate to the appropriate gray tone on the screen to make them look their best. Since virtually all of the actors of the time did their own makeup, there was a wide range of styles discernible in any given scene of an early film. It was widely accepted that the paler the complexion, the more youthful an actor would appear. This was largely a carry-over from the theatre, and, as a result of this inherited notion, it is clearly obvious in the majority of early films that the young hero and heroine are several shades lighter than the supporting players. In fact the hierarchy of actors is clear, in that the leads are skillfully cosmeticised, the second leads have a secondary, somewhat darker colouring and the extras, who are often without makeup altogether, are dim with ill defined features.

The pale complexion was soon adopted by actresses who created characters for themselves that were meant to appear virginal or childlike. Mary Pickford with her golden curls and Dorothy and Lillian Gish with their pale, powdered ethereal beauty soon became cherished icons for the moving picture public.

It was soon discovered that pinks and reds should only be used for shading the contours of the face. A crooked nose or a double chin would seem to disappear when “shaded” with pink. Because pink does not reflect light onto blue-sensitive film, it could be used to flatten a bulge or contour a face to make it longer and more aesthetically pleasing. Pink was also the new prescription to shorten a nose and create the desired youthful effect.

Bobby Harran as “the boy” in Intolerance, 1916

By the late teens all manner of makeup was being tried to lighten and contour a face and create gray tones that the camera could “see”. It was discovered that a base colouring of yellow or pale blue yielded the desired impression of youthful vitality on film, so actors began to employ makeup “specialists” to create makeup “looks” for them that best enhanced their features and supported the types of role in which the public liked to see them. If one looks at the Gloria Swanson film “Male and Female” from 1919, the type of makeup and the difference between star and cast members is somewhat more obvious.

The early indoor lighting systems for filming, the carbon arc lamps and the Cooper-Hewitt mercury vapour lamps with their unnatural greenish glow slowly began to be replaced and, as a result, the spectrum of light and what the camera saw began to be controlled.

By the late teens and into the early twenties, the “screen test” was born and both cinematographers and the new tribe of makeup specialists “tested” actors to see how they photographed and the idea of a “camera face’ or a face the camera “loved” became an important factor in the making of a star.

PANCHROMATIC FILM— THE NEW ERA BEGINS

In the 1920s most filming companies converted to the new panchromatic film and in 1922 the first complete film, “The Headless Horseman, Sleepy Hollow” was shot on panchromatic film that captured a wider spectrum of colour and light that translated into gray tones that appeared more natural and changed the necessity to overcompensate for the limitations of the old blue-sensitive film. By 1925 the severe makeup of the early days of film-making had softened dramatically into an appearance that was much more natural and appealing.

Makeup artists had taken over the job of assisting the actors with their own makeup and pioneers in that field like Perc Westmore and Max Factor created lines of makeup that were more faithful to natural skin tones. Max Factor, who would go on to create a consumer retail makeup dynasty, was the first to create film makeup that was specifically designed for film. His product was called panchromatic greasepaint that came in a range of 31 shades of base colour and matching powder for men women and child actors and were determined in gray scale tones based on the colouring of blondes and brunettes. With the addition of tungsten lighting after 1927, the film set became a kinder and friendlier place for the actor and the days of acting opposite compatriots with yellow, pale blue or even green faces was truly a thing of the past.